RE: [sv-ac] ballot result on 2150

Hi Bassam,

It is true that in some other parts it is allowed to have automatic
variables but there are very strict rules about using them. The only
place where an action block type of scenario comes is while passing
automatic var to fork-join. Section 9.3.2 has strict rules about their
usage and also 13.5.2 (concept of outdated references). There is well
defined behavior for these cases.

Currently the LRM is completely silent about it when it comes to action
blocks and subroutine calls in assertions. As far as I understand no
vendor supports it either (atleast not completely). I think the best
thing for the short term is to disallow it and later on we can consider
relaxing this rule if we come up with a well defined way to handle it.

Thanks.
Manisha

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of John Havlicek
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:02 PM
To: sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] ballot result on 2150

Hi Folks:

Our ballot on 2150 failed due to negative vote.

See the results below.

J.H.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Ballot on Mantis 2150

- Called on 2008-01-15, final ballots due by 2008-01-21 T 23:59-08:00.

yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xx] Doron Bustan
(Intel)
yv[xxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-x] Eduard Cerny
(Synopsys)     
 n[----------------------x-xxx---------x-x-xxx-x---x] Surrendra Dudani
(Synopsys)
 v[xxxxxxxx-xxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xx-xxxxx-xxx-xxx-------] Yaniv Fais
(Freescale)
 t[xxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] John Havlicek
(Freescale - Chair)
yv[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxrxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxx] Dmitry Korchemny
(Intel - Co-Chair)
 v[xxxxx-xxxxxxxxx-xxx-x--xx--xxxxx----------xx-xxxx] Manisha
Kulshrestha (Mentor Graphics)
 n[------------------------------xxxxx-------x-xx-x-] Jiang Long (Mentor
Graphics)
 n[---------x------------x--xxx.....................] Joseph Lu (Altera)
 v[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx..............................] Johan Martensson
(Jasper)
 n[---------------------------x--x-xx--xx-xxxxxxx-x-] Hillel Miller
(Freescale)
yv[xxxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxx] Lisa Piper
(Cadence)
yv[xxxxxx-x-x-xx-xxxxxxx-x-xxxxx-x..................] Erik Seligman
(Intel)
 n[-------x-x----x--------xxxx-----xxxx-xx----------] Tej Singh (Mentor
Graphics)
nv[xxxxxx-x-xxxxxx--xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Bassam Tabbara
(Synopsys)
yv[xxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx...............] Tom Thatcher (Sun
Microsystems)
   |------------------------------------------------- attendance on
2008-01-15
 |--------------------------------------------------- voting eligibility
for this ballot
|---------------------------------------------------- email ballots
received

        Legend:
                x = attended
                - = missed
                r = represented
                . = not yet a member
                v = valid voter (2 out of last 3 or 3/4 overall)
                n = not a valid voter
                t = chair eligible to vote only to make or break a tie


------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Rationale for Negative Vote

[BT]

I vote no. Proposal adds unnecessary restrictions, we need not make such
accommodations for action blocks -- the rest of SV TB does not have
this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Friendly Amendments

[DK]

* Region names should be capitalized. "the reactive region" -> "the
Reactive region" throughout the proposal.

* The LRM usually does not explain limitation reasons, therefore I
believe that the explanation why the automatic variables are disallowed
is redundant.

E.g.,

"Since the action block of an assert statement executes in the reactive
region, the automatic variables referenced in the action block may not
be valid when the action block executes. Therefore the action block of
an assert statement shall not refer to an automatic variable declared
outside of the action block with an exception: An automatic loop
iterator variable may be used in the action block of the assert
statement that is
within a for or foreach loop."

may be rewritten as:

"The action block of an assert statement shall not refer to an automatic
variable declared outside of the action block with an exception: An
automatic loop iterator variable may be used in the action block of the
assert statement that is within a for or foreach loop."

Also, should the part of a sentence after a colon be capitalized? Maybe
to rewrite it as:

"The action block of an assert statement shall not refer to an automatic
variable declared outside of the action block with the following
exception: an automatic loop iterator variable may be used in the action
block of the assert statement that is within a for or foreach loop."

* The same exception (about for loops) should apply to clause 16.10.

[SB]

The LRM also says in 3.10,
"Although this standard defines the results of compilation and
elaboration, the compilation and elaboration steps are not required to
be distinct phases in an implementation. Throughout this standard the
terms compilation, compile and compiler normally refer to the combined
compilation and elaboration process. So, for example, when the standard
refers to a "compile time error", an implementation is permitted to
report the error at any time prior to the start of simulation."

But it would be confusing to use 'elaboration' and then use
'compilation' in the more general sense.

[TT]

First paragraph:  "with an exception:"  --> "with one exception"

Same in the added paragraph for 16.14.2, and in 16.14.3

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.